§ Statement of Purpose

The View from 1776 presents a framework to understand present-day issues from the viewpoint of the colonists who fought for American independence in 1776 and wrote the Constitution in 1787. Knowing and preserving those understandings, what might be called the unwritten constitution of our nation, is vital to preserving constitutional government. Without them, the bare words of the Constitution are just a Rorschach ink-blot that politicians, educators, and judges can interpret to mean anything they wish.

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, to the Officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798.

§ Syndicate

The View From 1776

Krugman

If socialist propagandist Paul Krugman deserved the Nobel Prize in economics, it wasn

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/12 at 12:53 AM

"Consumers Don

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/12 at 12:36 PM

A stimulus package for consumers is not necessarily a great idea when it comes to their spending because consumers are traumatized and not very confident at the moment. So any money that is thrown their way will probably go into savings or paying down their huge debts, not into purchases.

Where stimulus and arm twisting should be directed is at the financial community where trust and confidence is at their lowest in memory. Trust and confidence restored in financial institutions will slowly develop consumer trust and confidence.

At the core of the financial meltdown is bad real estate investments. That should be cleared up before any confidence is restored, with lenders and consumers alike.

America has been cruising towards this financial debacle for years and it will probable take years to get back to a normalcy.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/12 at 03:07 PM

Keynesianism is back! But Brewton has not kept up.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/12 at 05:00 PM

"Like Keynes, he has been consistently wrong in his predictions, most notably in proclaiming that tax cuts in the first term of the present Bush administration would not revive the economy and, in any event, would not lead to creation of new jobs. Only government spending can revive the economy, according to liberal-Progressive orthodoxy."

Keynes would not have agreed with Bush's tax cuts because it was given to the wrong people and based on a supply-side economics that was debunked years ago. Keynes certainly would not have agreed on waging a war while having tax cuts for the wealthiest Americas.

On top of that, in comparison with the Clinton administration, not enough jobs were created by Bush's tax cuts to keep up with the population growth. The tax cuts, as well as other Bush cuts - regulations and good government, also stoked the artificial bubble that led to the present financial crisis.

If Bush&Co; had practiced Keynesian, at least by half, America would not been in the financial predicament it is in today.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/13 at 10:52 AM

Keynes supplied the perfect rationale for political irresponsibility. Deficit spending is Keynesianism. The problem comes from the simple fact that once given the rationale politicians can't stop. Deficits in good times and bad. That was not a recommendation of Keynes. Consumption is not a wealth builder. Savings,capital formation and investment are the most important factors. Your interpretation of Keynes is simply wrong. Keynes would not consider himself a Keynesian today. It's too easy to be irresponsible when one has a pseudo-scietific economic theory to justify the irresponsibility.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/13 at 12:40 PM

".....pseudo-scietific economic theory...."

That means nothing, nothing!!!!

When at a loss for knowing say something that sounds as empty as possible, like the quote above.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/13 at 01:14 PM

Is economics a science? is keynesianism a theory? Does it emphasize consumption or capital formation? Has it been used as a justification for institutionalized deficit spending? Do other economists differ? Those social sciences which posit theories that are non-falsifiable and immune to the rigors of the scientific method are pseudo-science.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/13 at 02:00 PM

Well, then, I think you should included the pseudo-scientific economic theory that was perpetrated during the Bush years, both by his administration and its cohorts on Wall St.

Cheney once famously announced that deficits don't matter anymore. Republicans thought they could cut the size of government by strangling it with a lack of funds and tax cuts, while waging War. That voodoo economics didn't work but backfired instead, as seen by the carnage on Main St. On Wall St., which was enabled by Bush&Co;., there were those who concocted derivatives, credit-default-swaps and predatory lending devises that belonged in fantasy land.

The damage don't by the psycho economics of Bush&Co;. is far and beyond anything experiences before and has don't more damage to communities around the USA than any Keynesian economics would/could ever have done.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/13 at 02:58 PM

The derivatives markets have a longer history than you seem to realize. Artificially low interest rates, reaching for yield among fed supervised banks, government policies regarding lending standards and the growth of securitization originated by Fannie Mae and imitated by fed supervised banks and primary dealers created this mess. The president and his misguided 'ownership society' gimmick regarding home ownership in particular encouraged this debacle but did not create it. Who benefitted from the 15 year credit explosion until the music stopped? 1) The supervised banks 2)The political class charged with regulating the financial system 3)The government which generates revenue from economic activity regardless of the soundness of that activity. This is a systemic failure directly connected to defective policy grounded in an unworkable ideology that predates the current administration.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/13 at 03:18 PM

Your ideological, partisan slip is showing.

The systematic failure does predate this administration for sure, like civilization does. But this administration milked the system for all it could, encouraging abuses never before seen, which finally pushed it over the hill. It's momentous. Bush&Co;. didn't even try to fix the wrongs in the system from before; it just added to them. Moreover, it can take credit for the debacle, for it happening during its watch and nobody else's.

Having said that, I am glad it happened because from it will come a more sensible governance and economic policy. And it came at the right time, to finish tarnishing a legacy that was already headed for the dust bin of history. Great finale for an abusive administration!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/13 at 03:58 PM

My ideological slip? Only the left fantasies about it's non-partisanship. "Agree with me or your a divider" is the refrain. Can you see the totalitarian implications? I'll bet you now that the systemic failure will not be addressed and all that will be offered is more of the same market distorting, self-serving policies that got us here.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/13 at 04:09 PM